(AP ASSOCIATED PRESS) WASHINGTON - Gun control advocates sputter at their own impotence. The National Rifle Association is politically ascendant. And Barack Obama's White House pledges to safeguard the Second Amendment in its first official response to the deaths of at least 12 people in a mass shooting at a new Batman movie screening in suburban Denver.

Tired of all these Rambo wannabes in here. Rush him!??! Every one is blinded you don't know where the gun fire is coming from or going to or how many shooters there are. People in the front row were hit by the smoke bomb itself and are in the hospital under critical conditions. My sister in laws friend was in there, she was hit by the bomb and lost her spleen, kindey and half her right calf and a lot of blood. They don't know if she will pull threw. All the people who would have shot back if they were there!?!? Your completely blinded due to the smoke your more likely to hit innocent bystanders then the actual guy. Face it, you would be on the ground trying to stay alive and trying to keep your friends alive.

I feel its pretty rude to come in here and say its a shame someone didn't do something to stop him when there is so many dead and injured. I hope none of you who said things like this ever have to be in a horrible situation like this one, because no matter your training or size of balls when your in a horrific situation like this surrounded by mass panic and screaming with no visualization of anything around you, it will go down a hellava lot different then how it does in your imagination.

At 7/23/12 10:10 AM, Swag-in-a-Bag wrote:
Since James is going on trail this morning, I was wondering if his hair is still died red, or did he use that cheap washable spray dye ? Would be interesting to see a red head man on trail

Um, actually James Holmes was an honors student and had a Phd. He had no previous criminal record and most likely snapped into psychosis, considering there really wasn't a motive for him to commit such an act.

Don't try to say "OH yeah he's white therefore the media will always like him" he already had good credentials, no criminal history, and a great academic success. He's white so automatically he's being treated better by the media rather than his actual achievements?

And who the fuck said "the media must like me because I'm white" almost everyone hates him for what he did. And no death penalty for him? How do you know? Has the trial already ended with the judge saying "you have a life sentence, but no death penalty"?

Even the most righteous, logically sound individuals are subject to poor reasoning skills and deluded mindsets.

At 7/25/12 03:12 PM, II2none wrote:
It's pretty much like saying if the kids at Virginia Tech were armed then the massacre wouldn't have happened.
Point is guns =/= safety. (And no I'm not against the use of guns.)

Agreed. Just like banning guns entirely wouldn't prevent this from happening. They would find a way to get a gun or worse make a bigger bomb then the one he threw into the crowd. Im in Aurora CO and gun sales are up dramatically. It worries me to think that now everyone here is packing heat.

At 7/25/12 05:58 PM, CritcalOne wrote:
How the fuck will guns change this? It's not like you would see, yet dare fight back with the dude having full body armor.

Body armor doesn't work like that. You get shot, you're going to feel it. Unless you're one real ass mother fucker, that shit will eventually stop you, or at the very least distract you enough to drop your shit. Grab a gun, and have somebody punch you as hard as they can in the gut or chest, and try not to let go. Now, try to also be aiming with that shit happening.

At 7/25/12 05:58 PM, CritcalOne wrote:
How the fuck will guns change this? It's not like you would see, yet dare fight back with the dude having full body armor.

jesus how many times do I have to explain this Body armor is only good for 2-3 hits depending on the caliber of the weapon.
the shit this guy had was cheap shit so it would have only lasted 1-2 hits with a 9mm.

At 7/25/12 07:46 PM, AnonymousOfCali wrote:
Ok honestly I would rather have maniacs have to go through the black market than just buy 6000 fucking rounds from "GunsGunsGuns!!!!.com" completely legally, and most of the semi-retarded angry assholes of america being armed with a fucking weapon that can kill in a movie theater.

You can easily go through 6000 rounds in a weekend or two if you're dedicated enough and have the time. Look at other countries. High guns per capita, low crime. And then there's places like England, with no guns, yet one of the highest violent crime rates. A weapon that can kill? If I was pressed to I could kill you unarmed, as could just about anyone else. Should we ban bats? Knives? Cars? Every blunt object? every sharp object?

It's like with nukes, we all have them. Nobody is going to get angry enough over some insipid bullshit to fire yet, but its going to fucking happen.

At 7/25/12 08:06 PM, AnonymousOfCali wrote:
Yeah and apparently it only takes 1/100 of that to kill 12 and injure 50

Bar exits, light fire. Theater burns, everyone dies.

they have carry laws. which I'm assuming you are for. high guns per capita doesn't mean anything if you can't conceal and carry. I'm all for the whole guns in your house thing to stop burglary. But don't want to devolve the state of america back to the wild west.

So you want to make easy access to purchasing guns, but not the ability to carry them with you?

That would, quite literally, make it the easiest way for only criminals to be the ones carrying guns.

It depends on the social and economic state of affairs. Obviously a ghetto in LA is going to have a higher crime rate than ANYWHERE in canada.

Yes, that's the point. It doesn't come down to guns, it comes down to people.

I would rather you have to strangle the life out of me than point and shoot twice. Guns=long range killing machine. I'm pretty sure most of america aren't total badasses like you anyway.

Nah, it would be extremely simple to walk up behind somebody and kill them if you have even a little bit of strength.

Comparing bats and cars to guns.

You're right, it was foolish of me to compare a bat to a gun considering a gun has more utilitarian purposes, and guns kill nowhere near as many people as cars.

Both kill many people, I don't see why not. WW2 wasn't fought with bats and cars, now was it?

If you really want america to go back to the wild west (why not we're still almost as culturally devolved) where everyone had a revolver in there holster and a rifle on their back than hold your egotistical fantasy.

The wild west? You mean a lower murder rate then current day Baltimore?

Everyones armed, nobody wants to start shit ever, due to everyone being armed.

It's very easy to find a theater (Well, depending on size of city) that has two or three emergency exits, and the other ways out goes through a lobby. Not exactly hard to block completely.

I only said I am for possession in home. I didn't even mention how I think people should be restricted while buying.

And what is your method that would magically root all of these people out?

So you agree with me?

I think we're like the geth and heretic and geth. A slight programming difference makes you arrive to the conclusion 2>1, while I arrive at 3>2, when fed the same information.

I'm not even going to get into this.

?

Have you ever been put into a perfect choke when caught unaware? They're hard to get out of, even if you can manhandle the person just through strength in any other situation.

Because they are restricted.

88 guns per 100 people.

808 vehicles per 1000 people.

Well shit.

They kill a lot of people because they are legal. If you truly believe cars are as dangerous as guns I don't see why you would even consider getting guns legalized. Let alone if you had the realistic and sound point of view that GUNS are more dangerous than cars.

No, they kill people because shit happens. Shit will always happen. Banning things based off of gut reactions even though every single piece of data contradicts your gut won't change that.

Even if you believe you can predict what would happen under these retarded conditions you really can't tell me you can. You remember old west shootouts in movies? You really think some of america is even ready to chop fucking carrots without being a danger to others? You are kind of fucking yourself over there, as you think most people can come up to me and kill me with their bare hands.

I don't get it. Are you suggesting that people wouldn't be able to kill you with their bare hands? We all have the capacity to do it, we just don't have the will, so to speak, to do it.

Also you didn't address my rebuttal to your "high guns per capita argument" which pro carry law people always throw out.

I have multiple firearms. I alone start skewing the statistics. Some people have fucking arsenals, able to set the ratio to 1:1 for their neighborhood even if all of their neighbors have absolutely zero guns.

How about your favorite country ever, switzerland? which most of you think has people walking around with guns on their back?

"To carry firearms in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a Waffentragschein (gun carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.

Washington is a shall issue state. Meaning all I have to do is pretty much just on a whim decide "Fuck it, I want to start carrying a pistol." Bam, 3 days later I got my permit. Within the week I'll have my gun and ready to go. Or, I'm walking around, and decide to walk into the local sporting store. Bam, left with a shotgun and some ammo.

California, 10 day waiting period. May issue. Not allowed to carry a gun in the fucking CASE my 1911 came with.

It is, however, quite common to see a person serving military service to be en route with his rifle."

And here, while not exactly the norm, you'll see just some average Joe walking around with his rifle on his back and it ain't no thang.

Switzerland, where mostly everyone has a gun, and almost no one carries them, DOES have a lower crime rate! Thank you for helping my point!

And the states with the most lax gun laws, specifically the carry laws, have the lower crime rates.

I tried to find a country where the gov. is actually stupid enough to allow everyone to carry guns, but the only ones I could find were....um... oh yeah, those 3rd world countries that most people consider war zones.

At 7/25/12 09:26 PM, AnonymousOfCali wrote:
california is ghetto as fuck and washington still comes close to % of murders per 100,000 people with firearms since 2010.

seriously even with cali having stricter gun laws its entire heart and soul can be summed up by two minorities shooting eachother. why is washington still in that same percentile?

South Seattle has gangs (nowhere near California's gang population) as do places like Tacoma, Federal Way and South Center.
Remote areas in WA have Meth Labs which often involve gangs and violence
Shootings tend to happen at Seattle events (How many times has folk life been shot up?)

Washington might not seem rough, and I would like to say it isn't but there are some rough areas.

Having everyone walking around with a gun is not a good thing. And saying if everyone is carrying a gun no one is going to want to start shit is aslo way off! Look at gangs. They all carry and it doesn't stop em from starting shit. There are a lot of people with short tempers. They get in street arguments, now add a gun to that. I lived in Kent WA 3 years ago. Fairly rough area. The groundskeeper in my apartment got into an argument with some guy over parking in a reserved spot. They were in each others face and not long after it started the groundskeeper pulled a gun on the other dude... right in front of me and my friend who were just walking by. There is to many people with short tempers. Or are a little to young and full of themselves (like a few in this chat) who think they can take on an a small army with their guns. People like this who would cause more trouble then solve crisis's if they started carrying guns. Think of all the innocent people that could accidently be caught in the line of fire.

At 7/26/12 12:14 AM, BenwaHakubi wrote:
South Seattle has gangs (nowhere near California's gang population) as do places like Tacoma, Federal Way and South Center.

Pfft hahahaha South Center and Federal Way having gangs. I live in Federal Way. Besides car jackings, and the occasional shooting, it really is not that bad of an area, and is middle class, with upper middle class neighborhoods.

Remote areas in WA have Meth Labs which often involve gangs and violence

Gotta love our meth though

Shootings tend to happen at Seattle events (How many times has folk life been shot up?)

Oh come on, 1 guy got injured.

Washington might not seem rough, and I would like to say it isn't but there are some rough areas.

Haha, rough for Washington, but nowhere near bad. There's what, hilltop and white center, both of which really aren't bad at all.